The underlying issue in this case is whether a police officer that had been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of his military service in Iraq could be terminated as being unfit for duty. Procedurally, this case raises several issues related to the complexity of employment decisions by municipalities, particularly police offices, in Tennessee. Officer Hoback was terminated by the police chief and this decision was upheld by a panel of three Chattanooga City Council members based upon standards set forth in Tennessee Code Annotated 38-8-106 and set by the Tennessee Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) Commission. In addition to these provisions, the Chattanooga City Charter also dictated the standard of review by the trial and appellate courts.
To add to the confusion, although the provisions of TCA 38-8-106 used by the City Council have not been repealed, the State of Tennessee entered in to a Consent Order and Final Judgment in 2003 in the case of the United States v. State of Tennessee, which provided in part that a “job applicant or incumbent employee may not be disqualified on the basis of a disability unless, after undertaking an individualized assessment of the individual, an employer determines that: (1) the individual cannot perform the essential functions of the job, with or without accommodations, including, with respect to incumbent, employees, reassignment, and/or (2) the individual would pose a significant risk to the health or safety of self or others that cannot be reduced or eliminated by reasonable accommodation.”
The Court of Appeals ordered that the case should go back to the City Council to be decided based upon the standard in the Consent Order.
